Ship of Fools: One way trip to Mars

Thread: One way trip to Mars Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028896

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

100 people have been selected to go to Mars in 2024. It's a one way trip, meaning that the group will stay ther, and presumably die there. One of the selected us a 23 year old woman from Fort William. That means she will leave Earth at the age of 32, never to return. Is this April 1? What do people think of this? Will it happen? I predict a lot of participants backing out before 2024.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Personally I think they should have invited nominations rather than applications.

I can think of a few candidates.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

If the trip to Mars gets cancelled, do you think they will all go to Cromer?

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

AIUI only 24 of the 100 shortlisted will be selected for the trip, and only 4 will go at first. Quite a challenge to think that these all have to be experts in developing self sustaining life. Might it have been an idea to practice on the moon first where return tickets are a possibility?

It's certainly an adventure, and requires a mindset that most of us probably do not have. It's the nearest thing to early explorers setting off to find the edge of the flat earth. I wonder if they'll get to Mars and discover it IS Cromer? [Biased]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

It could certainly end up not happening - it's being backed in part by TV company Endemol, who will run reality TV style programs during the various phases as the shortlist is whittled down, and get money that way.

The technical obstacles are obviously pretty formidable, so it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't actually blast off in the next ten years.

(Endemol once screened a show in the Netherlands in which a terminally ill member of the public had agreed to donate an organ to the "winner" of a reality show as selected by the public. That turned out to be a fake show, in order to try and improve organ donor registration. So they certainly have an eye for a good show)

Will it happen one day - yes, I think it probably will, and there will always be candidates willing to do it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

This article gives a good overview and notes that the link beteen the technically not-for-profit foundation and a for-profit entertainment company. From the article:

quote:
To many, Mars One is nothing but a hoax, an elaborate marketing scheme to scam investors and starry-eyed adventurers out of a huge chunk of cash

ETA more of the technical objections here.

[ 18. February 2015, 11:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

A lot of the interviews I've heard have been framed in terms of "going there to die". While this - as it's a one way trip - inevitable, it's not the primary narrative, which is "going there to live".

The hardware is the limiting factor, not finding sufficiently skilled and motivated people to take the challenge. If I didn't have responsibilities here, I would have seriously considered it.

Bluntly put, someone has to be first.

Posted by Ceannaideach (# 12007) on :

Hmmn, it's never a good thing when reality TV companies start to get involved in things like this IMHO.

Mind you Mars, (along with the Moon) is on a list of places I would to visit if I had the money/time/technology to do so. But I'm not so sure that I would like the idea of never returning to Earth. I'm rather fond of the old place.

On a related topic I have started reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson - worth a read if you're interested in this sort of thing.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

That article is extraordinary* - or more specifically, the suggestion it will only cost $6 billion. Here in the UK we are about to spend more than £40 billion on a few miles of railway. Who'd have thought you could get all the way to another planet for a tenth of that....

*out of this world maybe - sorry, I'll get my coat

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
On a related topic I have started reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson - worth a read if you're interested in this sort of thing.

Andy Weir's The Martian is more applicable. (I've just started reading it)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Ah, but it is much more expensive if you work it out in terms of dollars per individual journey ...

And, judging from other posts, the Mars ticket doesn't seem to have a return half.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

As it's based in the Netherlands, would it not fall under the Diocese in Europe? Perhaps, given the challenges of maintaining the apostolic succession at such a distance, it would be best to have two of the candidates consecrated to the episcopacy. Or less sublimely-minded shipmates may wish to nominate two bishops to send to Mars.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Ah, but it is much more expensive if you work it out in terms of dollars per individual journey ...

And, judging from other posts, the Mars ticket doesn't seem to have a return half.

It gets much more competitive when you consider cost per mile though, on account of it being a very long way to Mars ;-)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

That is, indeed, true.

Do you think the seats will be reserved, or will the "lucky" applicants have to stand in the guard's van? Depends on the time of lift-off, I suppose ... [Cool]

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The hardware is the limiting factor, not finding sufficiently skilled and motivated people to take the challenge. If I didn't have responsibilities here, I would have seriously considered it.

I think a lot of people are in this boat. And even if you did have responsibilities, you might be more up for it if there was a chance of returning.

Personally I think they're aiming too young if they're recruiting 24 year olds. The ideal candidates, at least for the initial trip, should be widowers (or at least divorced and having no intention of getting re-hitched) and the parent of grown-up children (but not yet a grandparent). So: someone who has done their bit for humanity, isn't going to get broody later in life (something the 20 year olds will never have considered in their youthful naivete), and - bluntly - won't live as long as said 20 year olds, so that if it all goes horribly wrong it will be over a lot sooner.

It has just struck me that Gilbert & Sullivan inadvertently tackled this very situation:

quote:
We observe too great a stress / On the risks which on us press / And of reference a lack / To our chance of coming back! / Still, perhaps it would be wise/Not to carp or criticize / For it's very evident / These attentions are well meant.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I don't think they'll be able to pull it off technically within the next decade, but even if it is a hoax, they're doing an important job in opening up the discussion about sending people to Mars.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That is, indeed, true.

Do you think the seats will be reserved, or will the "lucky" applicants have to stand in the guard's van? Depends on the time of lift-off, I suppose ...

I think one of the selection rounds in the reality TV part should consist of standing on Euston station during Friday rush hour, staring at the departure boards in anticipation of which platform you're going from.

Points should be awarded for successfully gambling which it is, but you should also select a couple who were more cautious and waited for the info, so the trip isn't populated just by gamblers. Ones who can leg it from the concourse to the platform first are obviously in good physical condition, which is also important for such an undertaking.

Sorted.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Personally I think they're aiming too young if they're recruiting 24 year olds. The ideal candidates, at least for the initial trip, should be widowers (or at least divorced and having no intention of getting re-hitched) and the parent of grown-up children (but not yet a grandparent). So: someone who has done their bit for humanity, isn't going to get broody later in life (something the 20 year olds will never have considered in their youthful naivete), and - bluntly - won't live as long as said 20 year olds, so that if it all goes horribly wrong it will be over a lot sooner.

On the other hand, younger people are stronger, more resilient, less likely to need medical assistance (other than that required to keep life going in such a hostile environment!) and - bluntly - more likely to keep their wits about them long enough to give the mission half a chance of success.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
On the other hand, younger people are stronger, more resilient, less likely to need medical assistance (other than that required to keep life going in such a hostile environment!) and - bluntly - more likely to keep their wits about them long enough to give the mission half a chance of success.

I don't think that's necessarily a given. Obviously (or at least obviously) the candidates are going to be screened for mental fortitude and adaptability - but it'd be my contention that a wealth of experience would go to go a very long way in a novel situation.

Youth is wasted on the young.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

From one of the interviews, I thought that part of the rationale for young people was that they could colonise the planet by breeding.

I've seen Interstellar too recently, with the depiction of attempted settlement of planets, not to have those images running through my head when I hear this news.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It could certainly end up not happening - it's being backed in part by TV company Endemol, who will run reality TV style programs during the various phases as the shortlist is whittled down, and get money that way. ...

That turns the 'could' at the beginning into 'will'.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
From one of the interviews, I thought that part of the rationale for young people was that they could colonise the planet by breeding.

Though, the young people selected who will be in their 30s in 2024 will be in their 40s or 50s by the time there is a launch. If there is a launch. Though not too old for children here on Earth, without access to medical facilities and in a much more hostile environment that would be less advisable on Mars, I'd have thought.

So, the breeders will be those in the second round 100 shortlisted in 10-15 years.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

From what I've read the intrepid voyagers will be strongly discouraged (or is it banned?) from having sex once they leave because their settlement will not be able to sustain future generations (and maybe they are afraid of favoritism for one's partner, jealousy, discord within couples, etc., even if they are very good at not conceiving children).

Note: consider my application withdrawn.

Is that going to work? I know it works with some success in monasteries and convents and I have written on the Ship in defense of it, but that is religious abstinence from sex - abstinence with an escape route, vows aside, if it does not work out. This abstinence is one they claim is necessary for survival and there is no where else they can go to live a normal life with sex. I would think it would be better to try to integrate some form of sexual expression into their lives for those who want it - so that the sex that probably is going to happen anyway over the decades is not secret and forbidden but can be discussed like other issues in their lives.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

Put me in the cynics camp. I can't see how the numbers stack up. The TV show will have to be very popular and remain so for years to raise enough money.

NASA reckons it would take 20years and $100billion to get to Mars - which they consider cheap. Mars One thinks they can do it in half that time and for $6billion?

But if they do somehow do it for that, a recent simulation estimates 68 days before the first death.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think the $6b is what Mars One claim it will cost to get the first 4 people to Mars. And, they will cut corners to do that - radiation shielding for the space craft for a start, probably training of the crew (eg: I strongly suspect that none of the crew will actually pilot the spacecraft or landers, it will all be handled by computer with ground control)

The NASA mission is a totally different programme. For a start, NASA plan a round trip - so they need landing craft that can return to Mars orbit. They need to design a spaceship that can get to Mars and back again. Both considerably more challenging than a one way trip. NASA will also take much more care to cover unexpected eventualities - so radiation shielding for worst case radiation from a solar flare, at least one crew member able to pilot the spaceship and landers in event of computer glitches, etc. NASA will also be going for scientific reasons, so there will be a payload of scientific equipment (designed, as far as possible, to guarantee to work with redundancy), and mission specialists to operate it. To guarantee a successful scientific mission to Mars NASA will almost certainly send more than 4 people, they sent 3 on each of the Apollo missions and that was just to the Moon. All that just adds to the costs, but increases the chances of value for money.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

All fair points but we're talking an order of magnitude difference. We're also talking an unproven non-profit versus a very established agency with some success in this field. There's a reason they're NOT taking some of those cost-cutting shortcuts.

But OK, let's say that one-way, fewer people mission size means they can do it for what they say they can - can they really raise that money? And can they raise it on the right timescale.

Chances are that on launch day and especially on land-on-Mars day, they can generate an audience that can raise huge amounts of sponsorship - but you need lots of money to get to launch day. The reality TV show gets more interesting, and therefore more profitable, the more money you've already spent. Seeing the rockets go up is likely a big payday - but are the months of astronauts-in-training footage enough to pay for building the rockets? or enough even to convince backers to invest in building the rockets?

I think there's a reason that projects like this have always been done by government agencies.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It sounds as if it could be compelling TV. If things go wrong (as with Apollo 13) that'll only create more interest.

If the money can be raised privately I think that's probably a good thing, considering how strapped for cash so many governments are nowadays.

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

Am I the only one that thought of Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson?

Which as it happens may be heading to TV soon?

x

AV

[ 18. February 2015, 19:09: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ahleal V: Am I the only one that thought of Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson?

No, you're not.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
On the other hand, younger people are stronger, more resilient, less likely to need medical assistance (other than that required to keep life going in such a hostile environment!) and - bluntly - more likely to keep their wits about them long enough to give the mission half a chance of success.

I'm not sure that's true.

During WW2, the death rate for American POWs held by the Japanese was higher for men under the age of 22 than it was for those aged 22-35. The younger ones had more resilience, but the older ones had better judgment.

Moo

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :

I was just thinking that the best chance for success might indeed to have a splinter group of a religious community go, with a shared ethic for a simple way of life, a spiritual ethos, a spiritual code to sustain them, perhaps an acceptance already of celibacy or a decision not to have children.

That could make a great short story.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Interestingly, when I watched 'Star Trek' as a girl I did wonder if the crew members were able to practise their respective religions on the space craft.

At least some of the candidates on this trip to Mars will be religious. But the RCs will have to do without priests, and the Muslims will have to work out how to pray in the direction of Mecca....

Mainstream films/TV shows tend not to deal with this sort of issue, but I don't know if a reality TV show in 10 years' time would be more open-minded. Perhaps the selection process will aim to eliminate anyone who appears to be 'too' religious if that means they won't 'fit in' too well with the others. Who knows?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

To put this in perspective some--when people started settling in the "New World" most knew they would never see their families again. Same with Australia.

Likewise, many airmen flying out of England over Europe on bombing runs in WWII knew they would likely never return but they went anyway.

I have a friend who dearly wanted to be on the first Mars mission. He is a astro biologist so he wants to see what is really there. His family is grown. He knows, if allowed to go, he will not see his wife or the kids or their children. Nevertheless he wants to go in the interest of science and the expansion of knowledge. I have yet to hear if he has made the shorter list.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SvitlanaV2: Interestingly, when I watched 'Star Trek' as a girl I did wonder if the crew members were able to practise their respective religions on the space craft.

Star Trek has been a bit ambiguous on religion at times. Picard had a famous anti-religion speech in the Season 3 episode Who Watches the Watchers (I've seen New Atheist cheering this speech on the internet). However, Worf was allowed to practice his religion on board the Enterprise, with encouragement and sometimes with active help from the other senior crew members. Deep Space 9 had a much more pronounced respect for religion, especially giving much air time to Bajoran beliefs.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

Very excited about a TV adaptation of Red Mars.

Babylon 5 was a series that addressed religion more directly than many others. Human religious tolerance and diversity, the Centauri pantheon, Susan Ivanova's encouragement to do the Jewish mourning rituals for her father, the episode Passing Through Gethsemane, Franklin's universalist faith, the intersection of medical treatment and religious belief.

I'd love to go into space.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Star Trek has been a bit ambiguous on religion at times. Picard had a famous anti-religion speech in the Season 3 episode Who Watches the Watchers (I've seen New Atheist cheering this speech on the internet). However, Worf was allowed to practice his religion on board the Enterprise, with encouragement and sometimes with active help from the other senior crew members. Deep Space 9 had a much more pronounced respect for religion, especially giving much air time to Bajoran beliefs.

I don't think Trek ever respected religion. "We respect your beliefs" was the closest they could come to it, but even then there was always the unsaid "... even though we know they're just superstitious nonsense and we're free of that stuff." Or, put another way, deeply, deeply patronising.

But to return to the subject: I love the idea of a religious community founding the first Martian colony. The Jesuits already have a thriving bunch of astronomers who must surely tick all the boxes discussed so far so I'm sure they would be happy to volunteer. (It's been done before in fiction, but due to the absence of artisitically gifted predatory sex-enslaving aliens this one would probably end more happily.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

How do you know there aren't artistically gifted predatory sex-enslaving aliens on Mars? Imagine the ratings for the first live broadcast (well, as live as you can get given the time it takes for radio signals to get from Mars to Earth) of the four finalists meeting the Martians for an orgy.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Star Trek has been a bit ambiguous on religion at times. Picard had a famous anti-religion speech in the Season 3 episode Who Watches the Watchers (I've seen New Atheist cheering this speech on the internet). However, Worf was allowed to practice his religion on board the Enterprise, with encouragement and sometimes with active help from the other senior crew members. Deep Space 9 had a much more pronounced respect for religion, especially giving much air time to Bajoran beliefs.
I don't think Trek ever respected religion. "We respect your beliefs" was the closest they could come to it, but even then there was always the unsaid "... even though we know they're just superstitious nonsense and we're free of that stuff." Or, put another way, deeply, deeply patronising.

But to return to the subject: I love the idea of a religious community founding the first Martian colony. The Jesuits already have a thriving bunch of astronomers who must surely tick all the boxes discussed so far so I'm sure they would be happy to volunteer. (It's been done before in fiction, but due to the absence of artisitically gifted predatory sex-enslaving aliens this one would probably end more happily.)

Wouldn't be too sure. ToS, Bread and Circuses:

quote:
KIRK: Gentlemen.
MCCOY: Captain, I see on your report Flavius was killed. I am sorry. I liked that huge sun worshiper.
SPOCK: I wish we could have examined that belief of his more closely. It seems illogical for a sun worshiper to develop a philosophy of total brotherhood. Sun worship is usually a primitive superstition religion.
UHURA: I'm afraid you have it all wrong, Mister Spock, all of you. I've been monitoring some of their old-style radio waves, the empire spokesman trying to ridicule their religion. But he couldn't. Don't you understand? It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God.
KIRK: Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now.
MCCOY: A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood.
SPOCK: It will replace their imperial Rome, but it will happen in their twentieth century.
KIRK: Wouldn't it be something to watch, to be a part of? To see it happen all over again? Mister Chekov, take us out of orbit. Ahead warp factor one.
CHEKOV: Aye, sir.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Without wishing to get into the whole question of obscene wealth, it does strike me that if they reckon they can do it for $6billion, there are quite a few people who could afford that outright themselves.

They might well not want to go themselves, but if I had that much money and was convinced they could pull it off I'd give it to them.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

According to the second document I linked to above, the cost is so low because they have not factored in the cost of additional launches to supply replacement parts - which is the chief reason for the 60 or so days' survival time advanced by MIT.

(The report also looks at the logistical difficulties involved in the supply of replacement parts, given the time taken to reach Mars and the available launch windows compared to, say, the ISS).

Participants may be naively assuming that "dying on Mars" is, other things being equal, a noble aim that in the best-case scenario could be several years off, but from my earthbound computer chair I tend to believe the folks at MIT are well-placed to conduct systems analysis and risk assessment, and that participants are not being given a fully informed appraisal of their likely life expectancy.

If so, I think that would be unethical and bordering on the criminal.

I'm old enough - just - to remember the first Moon landing and to have inherited my generation's romantic fascination with getting off the planet, but I don't think this programme is going to make that in the least bit likely.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Why don't they try living on the moon first?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As it's based in the Netherlands, would it not fall under the Diocese in Europe? Perhaps, given the challenges of maintaining the apostolic succession at such a distance, it would be best to have two of the candidates consecrated to the episcopacy. Or less sublimely-minded shipmates may wish to nominate two bishops to send to Mars.

Apostolic succession is guaranteed by the laying-on of the bishop's hands. There's nothing in the rubrics to say that the bishop still has to be attached to them.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I can't think of anything more boring than being exiled to Mars - or the Moon. Nothing to look out on but rubble and craters in every direction. Would the atmosphere on Mars hold enough oxygen for you to be able to go for a walk? A dark almost black sky on what is essentially a dead planet, and further from the sun so it would be colder. And the Moon is grey and creepy.

Absolutely everything would have to be imported and made to last as long as possible. You'd probably have to spend your life trying to make it all work and turning your hand to a little of everything. It wouldn't be like going to a planet that already had vegetation, water and resources. It would be a real struggle to make anything grow, unless it was done in earth-like conditions under coverings and an artificial dome with an artificially generated atmosphere, and pray the generators didn't break down.

And it would be very emotionally claustrophobic too.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Would the atmosphere on Mars hold enough oxygen for you to be able to go for a walk?

No. The 60-or-so day life expectancy figure is based on that being about when the nitrogen used to replace oxygen leaking out of the colonists' base runs out.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As it's based in the Netherlands, would it not fall under the Diocese in Europe? Perhaps, given the challenges of maintaining the apostolic succession at such a distance, it would be best to have two of the candidates consecrated to the episcopacy. Or less sublimely-minded shipmates may wish to nominate two bishops to send to Mars.
Apostolic succession is guaranteed by the laying-on of the bishop's hands. There's nothing in the rubrics to say that the bishop still has to be attached to them.

Indeed-- the second bishop would be there for insurance, in case the first one was taken out by suit failure or bug-eyed monsters before being able to consecrate their successor. An unsympathetic canonist of my acquaintance suggested that one could be metropolitan on the odd-numbered days and other on even-numbered days. I thought one could be Primate of All Mars, and the other could be Primate of Mars.

Religion doesn't have a big place in much science fiction. Babylon 5 had a messianic phenomenon, which in the context of the plot, was entirely logical. A US acquaintance sent me a draft of a fanfic of Babylon 5, with a major plot variation including a Russian monastery having its own craft, sending riassophore monks out to be chaplains of each craft. He complained to me that publishers were not interested-- I told him to get a translation into Russian and he would have better luck.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I suppose one reason the price might be lower than expected is that nobody will be able to get back to sue the people who sold them the idea of going there. [Snigger]

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... they could colonise the planet by breeding ...

Is anyone else being reminded of Moonraker, or is it just me? [Paranoid]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Augustine the Aleut: Religion doesn't have a big place in much science fiction.

I disagree. There is a lot of religion in much of SF. Dune, Star Wars ... religion is a major theme there.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Apostolic succession is guaranteed by the laying-on of the bishop's hands. There's nothing in the rubrics to say that the bishop still has to be attached to them.

Bishop Thing?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Religion doesn't have a big place in much science fiction.

I was on a panel at the last WorldCon, talking about why (with my fellow panellists) we put religion into our SF.

I would agree it doesn't have a big place, but it certainly has a place, which follows on from a long and illustrious tradition of religious-themed SF. (I'm going to add A Canticle for Leibowitz into the mix.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
According to the second document I linked to above, the cost is so low because they have not factored in the cost of additional launches to supply replacement parts - which is the chief reason for the 60 or so days' survival time advanced by MIT.

Given the ~ 50% success rate of not crashing unmanned craft onto Mars, 60 days is the madly optimistic figure.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I grew up a space-age kid--watched the moon landing and other missions in class. They hauled in a TV (rarely done, then), and had it on all day. Had space stuff on my wall. Loved the "Mushroom Planet" books for kids.

I did sometimes dream of being an astronaut. Girls weren't even allowed to train; then they could train, but not go into space. IIRC, the first issue of Ms. magazine had a feature article about that. I was angry.

I wouldn't have been able to make it, though--claustrophobia, motion sickness, etc.

I've got really mixed feelings about humans going into space, especially permanently and/or commercially. We've got so many problems here to take care of. And if we're not mature enough to treat our own species well, and other Earth species, we're sure not mature enough to go looking for life out there.

OTOH, exploring... [Cool]

IIRC, the journey would take years? So:

--4 people,

--in a small space they couldn't leave (or even open the window!),

--with limited supplies and no way to pull over and get more, no handy service stations,

--traveling for years and years,

--possibly no sex--or a very limited choice (and no way to get away if someone tries to force you); and the possibilities of STDs, pregnancy, running out of condoms,

--on a very dangerous journey,

--to some place with no humans and who knows about any other life (and you just know we're gonna mess up any life that *is* there, because that's what we do),

--knowing you can't ever go back to Earth,

--knowing you're going to die sooner, rather than later (possibly VERY soon), you might wind up the one lonely survivor, you might go mad,

--and being under pressure from sponsors, governments, media, etc.

--oh, and you might run out of DARK CHOCOLATE!!!
[Eek!]

Yeah, I'll sign right up. [Paranoid]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, the journey would take years?

There are launch windows every two years where the journey time is minimised, which are of course when any missions to Mars will be launched (that's true of the robotic missions already launched and planned, as well as the Mars One missions and the NASA manned mission).

Journey time for those missions would be 150-300 days, depending mainly on launch velocity. Faster launch = shorter journey, but requires more fuel and hence cost. Forget about the graphics produced by Mars One of the transit ship with engines working all the time. It'll be a short burst of acceleration out of earth orbit and then coasting all the way with only a few burns to correct course if needed.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

I think Golden Key has hit it about spot-on. When I first read about this, I thought that I'd somehow missed the second half of February and the whole of March and gone straight to 1st April.

I know death comes to us all, but really, why would anyone in full possession of their onions volunteer for a mission that's almost certainly going to expedite that death, and precede it with a few months of fairly intense discomfort and deprivation?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
I think Golden Key has hit it about spot-on. When I first read about this, I thought that I'd somehow missed the second half of February and the whole of March and gone straight to 1st April.

I know death comes to us all, but really, why would anyone in full possession of their onions volunteer for a mission that's almost certainly going to expedite that death, and precede it with a few months of fairly intense discomfort and deprivation?

Think of it as the ultimate Big Brother, in which no one is ever allowed out of the house.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Piglet: I think Golden Key has hit it about spot-on. When I first read about this, I thought that I'd somehow missed the second half of February and the whole of March and gone straight to 1st April.

This isn't something that came up recently, Mars One exists for some time already. I'm not sure why it's hitting the news now, but I like reading astronomy blogs, and I've been reading about this for years.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:

I know death comes to us all, but really, why would anyone in full possession of their onions volunteer for a mission that's almost certainly going to expedite that death, and precede it with a few months of fairly intense discomfort and deprivation?

You'd have to be a very special person to take this on, but everyone is different. We don't all hope for a long life in comfortable, familiar surroundings. Not everyone has a loving family or gang of friends to keep them stuck on earth.

Moreover, some people just yearn for a great challenge, to be pioneers, or to commit themselves to a cause. They'll give up a nice life just to have a chance at that.

[code]

[ 20. February 2015, 15:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

I can see that not everyone has a loving family. But if someone doesn't have a group of friends (assuming they are not ofgreat age and have outlived their friends, in which case they are unlikely to be fit enough to be selected for the Mars mission), are they likely to be the type of person who would thrive in a small claustrophobic colony trying to live together in an alien environment?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It will be a way of going down in history, spoken of in the same sentence as Niel Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Who remembers the second Apollo astronaut's on the Moon?

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

Or even who remembers who was the third member of the Apollo 11 mission who remained in the orbiting spaceship and didn't land?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Collins [Big Grin]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
I can see that not everyone has a loving family. But if someone doesn't have a group of friends (assuming they are not ofgreat age and have outlived their friends, in which case they are unlikely to be fit enough to be selected for the Mars mission), are they likely to be the type of person who would thrive in a small claustrophobic colony trying to live together in an alien environment?

I have no idea about the psychology of this. But I suspect that being a typical 'team player' of the type loved by recruiters for 'normal' jobs isn't exactly what's required. Maybe it's more a case of hiring a bunch of fairly self-absorbed tecchies/dreamers/geeks/experts etc. who work well together because they're all so passionate about the project, not because they're naturally chummy people.

[ 20. February 2015, 16:50: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... Who remembers the second Apollo astronaut's on the Moon?

Alan Shepard - the one who hit the golf-ball? [Big Grin]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

TIME Magazine just published the story of one woman and why she volunteered -- she's now one of the 100.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

One of the finest books ever written.

There's a disturbingly beautiful short story by James Blish, as I recall, What Purpose?

And Boris and Arkady Strugatsky's Roadside Picnic. Spine tingling in it last sentence to this day 40 years after I read it.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin60: There's a disturbingly beautiful short story by James Blish, as I recall, What Purpose?

I'm familiar with Roadside Picnic, but I can find nothing about this one.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

Given reality TV is behind it, if I were along for the trip, I would rather worried about the outfit going bust when I was halfway between Earth and Mars. That would most certainly ruin the landing.

On the other hand, maybe they could generate more income by doing the BB thing or copying the SoF-project we had some years back by planking one of the travellers into outer space every week or so.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

A more tinfoil hat theory emerged over dinner here yesterday evening: they are just going to pretend they are doing to Mars and film it all on a sound stage...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

...which would revive the old theories that the moon landing was faked the same way...

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

... as it was never really clear whether or not Elvis Presley actually ever did make it to Saturn ...

[ 23. February 2015, 06:43: Message edited by: molopata ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
A more tinfoil hat theory emerged over dinner here yesterday evening: they are just going to pretend they are doing to Mars and film it all on a sound stage...

They've obviously never watched the classic Capricorn One.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
molopata: Given reality TV is behind it, if I were along for the trip, I would rather worried about the outfit going bust when I was halfway between Earth and Mars. That would most certainly ruin the landing.

It would depend a bit on whether the landing depended on remote control or on auto-pilot. I think it is the former, so yeah. Not getting new supplies every two years would be a bitch too.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

With reality TV behind it, I suspect it would wind up like the mission in the "Hitchhiker's Guide" books, where all the most idiotic people on a particular planet were shipped off...and wound up on this strange little planet called "Earth"...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

No, it wasn't all the most idiotic people. It was the people who had jobs that were considered less important. They were unqualified for the job, it didn't make them idiots. Indeed, those who sent them who subsequently died from an infection caught from, IIRC, an unsanitised telephone, were probably the bigger idiots. Which poses the question with reality TV. Who are the bigger idiots, those who sign up to go or those who sit on their sofa and watch them?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Yes, it was partly about jobs; but it seemed that the people in those jobs weren't very sensible, didn't use whatever brain power they had (idiotic), etc.. Remember the captain taking baths on the ship's bridge? And how much they all messed up Earth?

And yes, the remaining Golgafrinchans got their come-uppance for getting rid of the phone sanitizers.

(It's admittedly been a long time since I read The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe, but I poked around online to refresh my memory.)

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

<Hitchhiker's Guide tangent> It was about the people with jobs that *Douglas Adams* considered unimportant. And in some cases he might have had a point, but I don't think hairdressers should have gone on Ark B. If the remaining Golgafrinchans hadn't died from the telephone plague they would probably have suffocated in all that hair. </Hitchhiker's Guide tangent>

[ 23. February 2015, 12:36: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

(H2G2 tangent)

LOL, Jane, and aha re it being based on Adams' opinions. Though he did at least have the sense to realize there'd be consequences.

As I recall, the exiled Golgafrinchans were referred to as "bloody useless loonies" and were portrayed that way. I may not have questioned that. (Probably 20 years since I read it.)

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

The Golgafrinchans are alive and well, and organising the 'restack' of our office ...!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

LeRoc. NO! Me not you. 'What Purpose?' isn't James Blish and it ISN'T the story, which IS James Blish's 'The Star'. 'What Purpose?' is a fine wee story but not a patch on the Blish one. 'What Purpose?' is about sentient trees on a world visited by human uranium miners ... Dunno who wrote it. One of the early 70's American near greats like Harlan Ellison or Gordy Dickson perhaps.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0